I get what Wotc is trying to do, I think. However, the art doesn't do anything for me. I think it will be fun to do 2hg sealed or whatever but I probably won't buy packs. WOTC knows that will be a popular sentiment so they were like "what if we added a few lotto cards?", which I think is a ploy to sell lots and boxes.
I will give them points for creativity, it sure is different.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I really hate how the MTG community only cares about the quality of cards in order to judge a set. A beautiful set like Kamigawa or Theros is a failure because it was underpowered, but everyone is going crazy over Battlebond because ''it has lots of value''. **** this *****.
Battlebond is the ugliest set I have ever seen.
I mean, I love Kamigawa and Theros, but this is a card game first. It isn’t surprising that people judge things based on what is going to matter most often.
Also Kamigawa isn’t loved as a plane by the majority, it isn’t just the card power level. Which I also like. I personally like Battlebond as a plane too, seems neat.
The art direction on Battlebond seems to basically fit what the set is about; the idea of "Magic does gaming, esports, and sports" is very clearly matched by the clean realistic style and bright colors. It's for the same reason Dominaria has a sort of glossy oil-painting look: to complement the themes of the set. Like with every set there's a range; Dominaria had some medium pieces (Cloudreader Sphinx), and Battlebond has shown some great ones so far (Spellseeker, Game Plan).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On average, Magic players are worse at new card evaluation than almost every other skill, except perhaps sideboarding.
Agreed. People are rationalizing this as different artstyles, how it fits the plane and a lot of random things. But the thing is the art is just bad. Light colors and textures everywhere, terrible shadows, almost no detail, obvious CGI. It's just all around the worst looking mtg set that has ever been created. And it's not even debatable.
A lot of people call it cartoony but I disagree. I consider cartoony stuff like the Foglio art, Warcraft style, comic books, etc. This style is so far from any stylization of any sort. It's attempting to be ''realistic'' ,if anything, but just feels flat and lifeless.
Please look at Soulblade Renewer or Stunning Reversal and tell me that they don't look very similar to something like Hearthstone art. It's definitely "cartoony" if you're defining that as close to what Blizzard does.
"Worst looking mtg set that has ever been created and it's not even debatable" is grotesque hyperbole. For one thing, it's not unless every pack of Battlebond secretly contains nothing but commons from The Dark. For another, the set is mostly reprints so even if you don't like the art direction in Kylem, most cards in the set don't have that art direction.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On average, Magic players are worse at new card evaluation than almost every other skill, except perhaps sideboarding.
There's definitely some overblown rhetoric spilling around, and it doesn't serve to make us seem reasonable. Still, the aesthetics of Battlebond (down to the flavor, and even the name of the set) feel a bit off.
It seems like we're supposed to care about characters like Rowan and Will Kenrith, but there's zero flavor, and only the most generic art. A lot of cards look kinda dumb, like Fan Favorite, or just painfully generic like Dwarven Lightsmith. I like the idea of a setting that is not apocalyptic, or overly epic, but we needed something to care about, and the "sports or something" vibe doesn't go very far.
There's definitely some overblown rhetoric spilling around, and it doesn't serve to make us seem reasonable. Still, the aesthetics of Battlebond (down to the flavor, and even the name of the set) feel a bit off.
It seems like we're supposed to care about characters like Rowan and Will Kenrith, but there's zero flavor, and only the most generic art. A lot of cards look kinda dumb, like Fan Favorite, or just painfully generic like Dwarven Lightsmith. I like the idea of a setting that is not apocalyptic, or overly epic, but we needed something to care about, and the "sports or something" vibe doesn't go very far.
Nevertheless, there are still nice works of art, such as Game Plan and Jubilant Mascot. We must remember this while we gripe.
Where are you getting we're supposed to care about characters because they have a name? Are we supposed to care about Isamaru now? They're just named Planeswalkers who have like, a very minimal amount of quotes to go off of, we don't even have the brief story bit that is supposed to show up.
And the sports setting/gladiator setting and such is kind of fun really. It's not meant to be serious, that doesn't make the art bad.
I was looking at the spoilers for Battlebond, got really disgusted by the art and rushed to see it was just me. For my surprise there is a topic like this (and several other in other forum).
I think people defending Battlebond art are missing the point. There is a complaint about the art direction and a complaint about the execution. Noone is mad about purple hair. I think in this stance most of us are sharing our frustration with art execution.
It's just bad, there is no way around it. Can people honestly say they like MTG because they have cards that looks like Impetuous Protege, Proud Mentor, Fan Favorite, Thrilling Encore ? Best case scenario you tolerate the bad art.
MTG creative department has been really lacking recently but this is a new low.
Thanks. Now I know I can completely ignore your opinion on card art. Because personally, I find Khorvath and Sylvia's art to be miles better-looking that the other cards you just mentioned.
Mark Tedin could doodle artwork on a napkin at 3 AM in the morning, after a 72 hour bender, with both eyes closed using his toes only with a dull crayon, better than 99% of the artwork in Battlebond.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
I really hate how the MTG community only cares about the quality of cards in order to judge a set. A beautiful set like Kamigawa or Theros is a failure because it was underpowered, but everyone is going crazy over Battlebond because ''it has lots of value''. **** this *****.
Battlebond is the ugliest set I have ever seen.
Probably because, at the end of the day, Magic is a game. So gameplay will be the top deciding factor more often than not.
I'm willing to bet that there are people who wouldn't care if the cards had no art or flavour text whatsoever.
Indeed Lore, Setting, Art Style are in general a nice bonus of varying degrees of importance but Power is what justifies spending cash on it. This is especially true when you consider how expensive Magic is especially if you want to jump into the hobby and don't have cards built up over the years.
Old art from 90s magic cards has a lot of personality but a lot of it is... lacking in execution. Like if the problem is execution, there's a lot of work from that era that looks rushed, low-detail, or downright amateurish.
Also, I like Fan Favorite. It's a funny concept and the execution is great. Sylvia Brightspear also has fantastic art. I think some people just recoil at illustration that has that kind of clean, photorealistic style.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On average, Magic players are worse at new card evaluation than almost every other skill, except perhaps sideboarding.
I think people defending Battlebond art are missing the point. There is a complaint about the art direction and a complaint about the execution. Noone is mad about purple hair. I think in this stance most of us are sharing our frustration with art execution.
I think it's the other way around. the people hating on the art are missing the point. Art is subjective. What you hate, I like, and vice versa.
The people claiming that Battlebond art is bad are making broad statements that it's the worst art ever, but it all comes down to personal preference. I like that it's less serious in nature. I like the cartoony aspect to it.
And for the opening post, it claims that the colourful Treasure Mage is bad. At least you can tell that one is a human. I was wondering if I was misremembering the card because of the supposed 'good' art, but no, the human is there. It's just really tuny, and the lack of colour distinction means it gets lost in the Dragon.
I think people defending Battlebond art are missing the point. There is a complaint about the art direction and a complaint about the execution. Noone is mad about purple hair. I think in this stance most of us are sharing our frustration with art execution.
I think it's the other way around. the people hating on the art are missing the point. Art is subjective. What you hate, I like, and vice versa.
If that was true then one couldn't ever argue for bad art. Someone could draw a kitten for Scarab God and your claim imply this is fine because someone might like it.
This cards looks like low quality action figures, I would hate to ever play with any of those cards.
Unstable had silly art, but it still managed to feel like Magic art to me because most of it had the right texture/level of detail. Battlebond, though... what do you think?
You are not alone on disliking the art direction with the set. It looks like it is drawing from the idea of having a Fantasy Olympics, but then combined the aesthetics strait out of the Goofier parts of the 5th Element. I almost want to say hunger games, but it lacks any of the lethality of that universe and it was far grungier. That and the art is very happy smiley safe.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I think people need to realize that everything can't be for them. I swear, if this forum, or humanity in general, can learn to disagree politely, things would be awesome. Alas, people have a tendency to be hyperbolic dicks, so...yeah.
Anyway, I do like the overall vibe of Kylem and the competition concept. I'm split on the art. I like some of it (Krav, the Unredeemed), but dislike most of it (the poster child being Rushblade Commander). It's cool though, not everything can be for me.
I will say that it doesn't get more milquetoast than those planeswalkers, though. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any representation for the blonde-haired, blue-eyed white folks, but did they have to be so bland?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 6/29/20 (Core Set 2021).
I appreciate what is going on with Rushblade Commander (she's moving so fast that the world around her is a blur) but I think at card size it reads as just "we didn't do a background for this one." So that specific card doesn't work for me, but it's certainly different and I appreciate them taking risks with the art. Battlebond in general is taking a lot of interesting creative and execution risks with its art, just not in directions that the grognards of mtgs appreciate. Not all of it works, but some of it definitely does for me (Again, I like Fan Favorite a lot).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On average, Magic players are worse at new card evaluation than almost every other skill, except perhaps sideboarding.
I think people need to realize that everything can't be for them. I swear, if this forum, or humanity in general, can learn to disagree politely, things would be awesome. Alas, people have a tendency to be hyperbolic dicks, so...yeah.
Anyway, I do like the overall vibe of Kylem and the competition concept. I'm split on the art. I like some of it (Krav, the Unredeemed), but dislike most of it (the poster child being Rushblade Commander). It's cool though, not everything can be for me.
I will say that it doesn't get more milquetoast than those planeswalkers, though. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any representation for the blonde-haired, blue-eyed white folks, but did they have to be so bland?
Given the art in the set, we don't even know if that is their natural hair color. Also, I don't think it's wrong to make a post saying that the artwork feels off. No one here is going off into political dreamland or something with it like some people are doing on the internet. Also, it's pretty clear WoTC wasn't confident in the set either given how loaded up the reprints are in the set. They seriously loaded this set with pure gas just in case the two headed giant thing and flavor failed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I think people defending Battlebond art are missing the point. There is a complaint about the art direction and a complaint about the execution. Noone is mad about purple hair. I think in this stance most of us are sharing our frustration with art execution.
And for the opening post, it claims that the colourful Treasure Mage is bad. At least you can tell that one is a human. I was wondering if I was misremembering the card because of the supposed 'good' art, but no, the human is there. It's just really tuny, and the lack of colour distinction means it gets lost in the Dragon.
Who even cares if you don't notice the human in the art at first glance. Your not going to assume creature type without looking at the card. And if you can read that it's Human in the center of the card and you've ever won a game of where's Waldo, I guarantee you'll find the human in under 2 seconds.
I wouldn't be caught dead with the standard art version in my deck lol. All you guys can call it subjective all day long. Whatever.
Also, it's pretty clear WoTC wasn't confident in the set either given how loaded up the reprints are in the set. They seriously loaded this set with pure gas just in case the two headed giant thing and flavor failed.
You might wanna stretch before jumping to conclusions like that. Seriously though, it's their job to sell packs. Reprints are just one piece of the puzzle, and aren't necessarily some kind of crutch. Conspiracy 2 was the same way. It just seems like they're getting better at making interesting supplemental products. Masters sets are another story entirely. I don't know how they can ever convince anyone to pay $10 a pack again.
Also, it's pretty clear WoTC wasn't confident in the set either given how loaded up the reprints are in the set. They seriously loaded this set with pure gas just in case the two headed giant thing and flavor failed.
You might wanna stretch before jumping to conclusions like that. Seriously though, it's their job to sell packs. Reprints are just one piece of the puzzle, and aren't necessarily some kind of crutch. Conspiracy 2 was the same way. It just seems like they're getting better at making interesting supplemental products. Masters sets are another story entirely. I don't know how they can ever convince anyone to pay $10 a pack again.
All you guys can call it subjective all day long. Whatever.
Well, now that I have your permission: it's subjective. Alright guys, let's pack it in. Thread's done.
Why pack it in? Stick around and talk about how amazing the art is, buy another box, buy 3 boxes and then show off your Fan favorites and Dwarven lightsmiths to all your friends and talk to them about how awesome, deep, skilled, inspiring and especially unique the fantasy art is in your favorite game using these kind of cards as an example. Then maybe swing by the Deviant art forums or make a youtube channel to tell about how "your game" has some of the best fantasy art out there. Brag like I would if I were showing off some of the full art promo's or even just half the art in MTG's history. It's all subjective in the sense that there's no way to make it objective. Hold onto that last part, you'll need it.
Btw I don't have anything against WOTC making a set that targets a different audience that's fine. I agree with the OP though.
Edit: Actually, I just realized the full spoiler is up and it's not all that bad. Mostly just the cards talked about and maybe more than a few others. Much of it is old art, good art.
Please look at Soulblade Renewer or Stunning Reversal and tell me that they don't look very similar to something like Hearthstone art. It's definitely "cartoony" if you're defining that as close to what Blizzard does.
"Worst looking mtg set that has ever been created and it's not even debatable" is grotesque hyperbole. For one thing, it's not unless every pack of Battlebond secretly contains nothing but commons from The Dark. For another, the set is mostly reprints so even if you don't like the art direction in Kylem, most cards in the set don't have that art direction.
The dark blows this set out of the water as far as art goes. The only comparable thing to this would be Battle for Zendikar, which also looked all around ugly. Battlebond atleast has a lot of old reprints.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I will give them points for creativity, it sure is different.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I mean, I love Kamigawa and Theros, but this is a card game first. It isn’t surprising that people judge things based on what is going to matter most often.
Also Kamigawa isn’t loved as a plane by the majority, it isn’t just the card power level. Which I also like. I personally like Battlebond as a plane too, seems neat.
A lot of people call it cartoony but I disagree. I consider cartoony stuff like the Foglio art, Warcraft style, comic books, etc. This style is so far from any stylization of any sort. It's attempting to be ''realistic'' ,if anything, but just feels flat and lifeless.
"Worst looking mtg set that has ever been created and it's not even debatable" is grotesque hyperbole. For one thing, it's not unless every pack of Battlebond secretly contains nothing but commons from The Dark. For another, the set is mostly reprints so even if you don't like the art direction in Kylem, most cards in the set don't have that art direction.
It seems like we're supposed to care about characters like Rowan and Will Kenrith, but there's zero flavor, and only the most generic art. A lot of cards look kinda dumb, like Fan Favorite, or just painfully generic like Dwarven Lightsmith. I like the idea of a setting that is not apocalyptic, or overly epic, but we needed something to care about, and the "sports or something" vibe doesn't go very far.
Someone mentioned The Dark, so let's look back at some of those beauties: Dark Sphere, The Fallen, Worms of the Earth, Fire and Brimstone, Goblin Shrine, Drowned. Compare that to Khorvath Brightflame and Sylvia Brightspear, legendary creatures whose art manages make riding dragons into a generic experience.
Nevertheless, there are still nice works of art, such as Game Plan and Jubilant Mascot. We must remember this while we gripe.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
Where are you getting we're supposed to care about characters because they have a name? Are we supposed to care about Isamaru now? They're just named Planeswalkers who have like, a very minimal amount of quotes to go off of, we don't even have the brief story bit that is supposed to show up.
And the sports setting/gladiator setting and such is kind of fun really. It's not meant to be serious, that doesn't make the art bad.
I think people defending Battlebond art are missing the point. There is a complaint about the art direction and a complaint about the execution. Noone is mad about purple hair. I think in this stance most of us are sharing our frustration with art execution.
It's just bad, there is no way around it. Can people honestly say they like MTG because they have cards that looks like Impetuous Protege, Proud Mentor, Fan Favorite, Thrilling Encore ? Best case scenario you tolerate the bad art.
MTG creative department has been really lacking recently but this is a new low.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Probably because, at the end of the day, Magic is a game. So gameplay will be the top deciding factor more often than not.
I'm willing to bet that there are people who wouldn't care if the cards had no art or flavour text whatsoever.
Also, I like Fan Favorite. It's a funny concept and the execution is great. Sylvia Brightspear also has fantastic art. I think some people just recoil at illustration that has that kind of clean, photorealistic style.
I think it's the other way around. the people hating on the art are missing the point. Art is subjective. What you hate, I like, and vice versa.
The people claiming that Battlebond art is bad are making broad statements that it's the worst art ever, but it all comes down to personal preference. I like that it's less serious in nature. I like the cartoony aspect to it.
And for the opening post, it claims that the colourful Treasure Mage is bad. At least you can tell that one is a human. I was wondering if I was misremembering the card because of the supposed 'good' art, but no, the human is there. It's just really tuny, and the lack of colour distinction means it gets lost in the Dragon.
If that was true then one couldn't ever argue for bad art. Someone could draw a kitten for Scarab God and your claim imply this is fine because someone might like it.
This cards looks like low quality action figures, I would hate to ever play with any of those cards.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
You are not alone on disliking the art direction with the set. It looks like it is drawing from the idea of having a Fantasy Olympics, but then combined the aesthetics strait out of the Goofier parts of the 5th Element. I almost want to say hunger games, but it lacks any of the lethality of that universe and it was far grungier. That and the art is very happy smiley safe.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Anyway, I do like the overall vibe of Kylem and the competition concept. I'm split on the art. I like some of it (Krav, the Unredeemed), but dislike most of it (the poster child being Rushblade Commander). It's cool though, not everything can be for me.
I will say that it doesn't get more milquetoast than those planeswalkers, though. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any representation for the blonde-haired, blue-eyed white folks, but did they have to be so bland?
My 720 Peasant Cube
Given the art in the set, we don't even know if that is their natural hair color. Also, I don't think it's wrong to make a post saying that the artwork feels off. No one here is going off into political dreamland or something with it like some people are doing on the internet. Also, it's pretty clear WoTC wasn't confident in the set either given how loaded up the reprints are in the set. They seriously loaded this set with pure gas just in case the two headed giant thing and flavor failed.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Who even cares if you don't notice the human in the art at first glance. Your not going to assume creature type without looking at the card. And if you can read that it's Human in the center of the card and you've ever won a game of where's Waldo, I guarantee you'll find the human in under 2 seconds.
I wouldn't be caught dead with the standard art version in my deck lol. All you guys can call it subjective all day long. Whatever.
You might wanna stretch before jumping to conclusions like that. Seriously though, it's their job to sell packs. Reprints are just one piece of the puzzle, and aren't necessarily some kind of crutch. Conspiracy 2 was the same way. It just seems like they're getting better at making interesting supplemental products. Masters sets are another story entirely. I don't know how they can ever convince anyone to pay $10 a pack again.
Well, now that I have your permission: it's subjective. Alright guys, let's pack it in. Thread's done.
My 720 Peasant Cube
Why pack it in? Stick around and talk about how amazing the art is, buy another box, buy 3 boxes and then show off your Fan favorites and Dwarven lightsmiths to all your friends and talk to them about how awesome, deep, skilled, inspiring and especially unique the fantasy art is in your favorite game using these kind of cards as an example. Then maybe swing by the Deviant art forums or make a youtube channel to tell about how "your game" has some of the best fantasy art out there. Brag like I would if I were showing off some of the full art promo's or even just half the art in MTG's history. It's all subjective in the sense that there's no way to make it objective. Hold onto that last part, you'll need it.
Btw I don't have anything against WOTC making a set that targets a different audience that's fine. I agree with the OP though.
Edit: Actually, I just realized the full spoiler is up and it's not all that bad. Mostly just the cards talked about and maybe more than a few others. Much of it is old art, good art.
The dark blows this set out of the water as far as art goes. The only comparable thing to this would be Battle for Zendikar, which also looked all around ugly. Battlebond atleast has a lot of old reprints.